Bava Kamma 29B

ורבי יוחנן אמר: לאחר נפילה מחלוקת.

And R' Yoḥanan says: The dispute is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall.

אבל בשעת נפילה מאי ⁠– דברי הכל פטור? והא מדקאמר רבי יוחנן לקמן: לא תימא מתניתין רבי מאיר היא, דאמר נתקל פושע הוא; מכלל דרבי מאיר מחייב!

The Talmud asks: But at the time of the person’s fall, according to this statement, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that the owner of the jug is exempt from liability? But from the fact that R' Yoḥanan says later (31a), with regard to another Mishnah in this chapter: Do not say that the Mishnah is the opinion of R' Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that R' Meir deems one who stumbles liable to pay damages. Evidently, it is not unanimously agreed upon that he is exempt.

אלא מאי ⁠– דברי הכל חייב? והא מדקאמר רבי יוחנן לקמן: לא תימא מתניתין רבי מאיר היא, דאמר נתקל פושע הוא; מכלל דפטרי רבנן!

Rather, what is the halakha in this case? Does he say that everyone agrees that he is liable? But from the fact that R' Yoḥanan says later: Do not say that the Mishnah is the opinion of R' Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that the Rabbis deem him exempt.

אלא הא קא משמע לן ⁠– דמפקיר נזקיו דהכא הוא דפטרי רבנן, דאנוס הוא; אבל מפקיר נזקיו דעלמא ⁠– מחייבי.

The Talmud answers: Rather, this is what R' Yoḥanan teaches us: That the circumstance in which the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property exempt is only the situation stated here, i.e., where he stumbled, as he is the victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in the general case of one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem him liable to pay for damage caused by it.